the obvious and the gay

over here is a study that says that poorer americans may be more stressed out than others.

really?

(h/t: Shakespeare's Sister)
...

in honor of this city's IML festival, i'll probably post something later about the FMPA again. it's time. again.

but i'll have to do it later. i need to get a mani/pedi.

just under the deadline

a while ago a friend told me he thought i wrote better when i didn't give myself a whole bunch of time to ruin it with thinking. that made sense to me, at the time. (and he was an editor, after all)

but what that really means is that i've trained myself to procrastinate till the VERY last minute.

i'm exhausticated.

but the piece for Geez mag is finished, i'm actually happy with it (until i reread it tomorrow) and if they use it, huzzah!

new planetary system: a conversation

scene: a cab, on the way home from marshall field's with the roomie.

roomie: so did you see the emails today between me and K-?
ding: no. i was busy all day. i barely checked email.
roomie: dude! you don't know about the new planets?
ding: the new what?
roomie: the new planets. dude. they discovered a new planetary system.
ding: shut up. a whole system? are you sure it just wasn't a bunch of stars or something? and how far away are they?
roomie: a whole system. behind venus or something.
ding: shut up. that close?? there was an entire planetary system within our own system, hidden behind a planet? what??
roomie: i don't know. i can't remember the details of the article. but i was saying to K- that this is how it begins - they discover a new planetary system and then, boom, Battlestar Galactica happens.

ding: (laughing) you are so crazy. but you have a point. how cool would that be? we get invaded by aliens in this new planetary system. that would change a lot.
roomie: politics, religion - everything. the fundamentalists would crap. it would blow everything out the water. everyone would have to come together to face the invasion.
ding: true. who would care about the clash of cultures, christianity versus islam, when there are aliens who want us for food?
roomie: they wouldn't necessarily be bad.
ding: it's always bad. every twilight zone episode has shown us that earthlings are terribly naive and then we get eaten by the invaders. and i could see the christian right telling us the alien invasion is actually satan.

roomie: all i'm saying is that there is a new planetary system and no one thinks this is an issue.
ding: that's ok. you'll be our chicken little.

CNN.com - Three new planets found around sun-like star - May 18, 2006

friday is my new best friend

i have a day off today.

i so need it. the past few months at the office have been insane. phase 1 of a project just finished and i am so glad, i could do a dance (and the dance would look like that eileen dance on seinfeld - don't get me wrong. i have rhythm. but my joy requires total goofy dancing this very minute); i was taking work home, working 12 hour days and i was just exhausted.

so now i'm home, in my bedroom, emailing, reading the paper and getting ready to go outside and get some coffee and go to the bank down the street. when i get back i have to start writing that article for Geez. (bad freelancer, bad!)

isn't friday great?

this is how you evangelize: cylon fundamentalists and the coolest show ever

my roomie and i are new to 'battlestar galactica'. (she hates that i tell everyone how much we love this show.)

i mean, i remember the old show with lorne greene walking around in shiny robes and richard hatch and dirk benedicts with guns strapped to their thighs. (oh, how many pictures of those two did i have taped to the inside of my book case? i loooved apollo.) but all i really remember from the old show were the really bad firefights and, actually, i think most of my memories are mixed up with Buck Rogers.

anyway, to catch up with everyone else who loves this show, my roomie and i spent two weekends renting season one and season two (damn them for splitting up season 2!) and we've immersed ourselves in the whole mythology.

yes, we're dorks! i love science fiction! space opera is the best!

things we love:
that starbuck is a woman - this is a HUGE improvement and we love it.
the fight scenes are so much better!
lt. gaeta is hot

i'm fascinated with how BG treats religion; i sense that there's a fairly complex 'theology'/mythology behind the whole narrative and we get a glimpse of it when the President goes on one of her drug induced visions or when the really annoying blonde Cylon babe (she's SO annoying) ups her Cylon-witnessing gambit with Baltar. or when adama and the president get into one of their faith v. military maneuvering discussions. i love it.

but is this religious war supposed to be analogous to our christian/islamic clash of cultures or just a basic christian/heathen thing?

and there are other questions:
how can the cylons have religion if they're machines?
what is their religion? and how did they get it?
and the humans worship greek mythology? huh?

what's the deal with kobol, again?
can someone please explain this to me??

snob, pt. 2

and your point would be...?

this week in prebyterianism

so i'm a deacon. we have an all day retreat next weekend and i am going to need loads of patience and caffeine to get through it.

and i'm about to step into a com'tee chair position that i can just tell is going to make me lose my temper and snap in the middle of a meeting. why i agreed to this, i don't know. yes i do! as a favor to my roommate who was vacating the position! argh. i knew i should've said no. i hate meetings. and i hate meetings that last more than one hour. and all we presbyterians do is meet. about everything.

has NO ONE heard of email?
or at least meeting at a bar so i can smoke?
...
this morning (and let's not even think about why i was up at 6.45 am on a Saturday) i found an email from a guy wanting to ask me questions about feminism and blogging for some article he's writing. he's probably some undergrad who has to write a paper.

but i thought his questions were useful so i'm posting them and my answers here:

# When did you start your blog?
I started ChurchGal about 3 years ago; I’d already had another blog up and running but I really wanted a separate space to talk about religion, faith and feminism in a more specific way.

# How many visits the site every month (if you don't know, then your estimate)?
I really can’t say. I don’t have a site meter (I really should get one of those) but I’ve noticed that I am getting more unique visitors since I joined a Progressive/Moderate Christian web-ring.
Sometimes the only way I have of measuring visits is through comments – some topics get big hits (anything having to do with sex or reproductive rights) and some get nothing (feminist theory and cultural semiotics, let’s say.)

# Do you know how many feminists blogs are out there - how many do you know?
There are many of us. Many, many, many. There is a huge list of women, feminist bloggers over at What She Said! I read Bitch, Ph.D regularly; I Blame the Patriarchy is another must-read and Angry Black Bitch is simply phenomenal. From there, of course, I read other writers and it’s astounding how many really good, smart, intellectually fierce women are writing!

# Why do you blog?
I first began blogging to get out of writer’s block; but then, when Bush became President the first time, it became a place for me to vent my anger and frustration at the direction my country had taken. I wanted to be public in my anger, my vitriol, my contempt for this administration.

But now I blog because it’s good intellectual practice. Based on some comments, I’m realizing that there is a lot of intellectual/educational work yet to be done to raise people’s consciousness. For instance, I plan on writing soon about Oprah Winfrey’s talk-show as a skillful cover for her contempt for the suburban housewife; I can guarantee someone will ask me why I hate housewives and what I have against Oprah? Or, when I talk about ‘patriarchy’ people ask me why I have an issue with ‘men’, not realizing patriarchy is a system, not a collection of guys – though men benefit primarily from patriarchy. Blogging makes me realize that not everyone went to college or university the way I did.

Being in dialogue with people (even with people who don’t agree) forces me to really assume a strong stance on some issues and really defend that stance. It’s like being back in school with a really demanding professor.

# Why do you think these blogs have become so popular?
They’re free. Well, not all of them, but generally they’re flattening access to authorship. Instead of discourse being generated by a few culturally elite, now everyone’s creating it. It’s truly populist – from the teenage girls with their Hello, Kitty templates to the serious academics like Juan Cole or Michael Berube – and then women like me, too. My father, a Baptist minister, has a blog!

# Does "equal status" between the sexes exist?
It depends on how you define ‘equality’ and ‘status’.

# If no, is that why you blog?
I don’t blog to even a score between men and women. I blog primarily because I love writing and I write to live. If I didn’t write, I’d go insane. But there is also a part of me that blogs to give voice to the more political or academic Me. It was something that had disappeared for a while and now it’s back and it never would have reappeared if it hadn’t been for blogging.

However, there is a secret part of me that likes to think that when people ask that idiotically sexist question, ‘Where are the women bloggers?’ I can raise my hand and say ‘Over here, you idiotic sexist!’

# Is this in your opinion the revival of the third wave? (Or is it really the fourth wave?)
I don’t even know what this ‘wave’ stuff is. For me, feminist bloggers are returning to our most basic, fundamental beginnings because we have to. I love how people talk as if feminism has made huge strides forward – it hasn’t. It’s alarming how much farther we have to go. Women are still extremely vulnerable to economic upset, our decision whether to conceive or bear children are under serious attack, and the last time I checked women in the U.S. only made up 14% of our political infrastructure despite being over 50% of the population. That’s huge. In some ways, blogging by feminists is a step to galvanize women to look at those conditions and do something about it – change something. Change anything.

I was in a meeting yesterday (and I work for a feminist organization) and a coworker said this about the use of the word Feminism: “It’s about as relevant today as abolition.” I laughed my ass off, but that’s a serious statement.

# How can this "wave" reach those not fortunate enough to own or have the chance to use a computer?
That’s an excellent question. My simple and completely ill-educated answer is to make sure we get those people computers. Information and education is power and if we want to empower the disempowered we need to make sure they have the means to free themselves.

fork and spoon! fork and spoon!

pinay of the world unite - a little canadian boy is being persecuted because he used a fork and spoon at the lunch table!

down with single utensil hegemony! down with it, i say!

JP: Luc Cagadoc: The DoubleSpeak (jp is all over this like a fork over a spoon)

why fork/spoon eating is good:
it is more efficient
you don't have to chase your food around your plate
you don't have to switch hands
it's perfect for scooping the meat with the rice
my mommy taught me to eat like this

AKBAYAN!

the hypocrite housewife

i read this essay in the back of my roomie's latest Time mag while taking a morning constitutional and i had a suspicion that something was wrong.

1. the whiny victim tone. sweetie, you're not a victim. the image of ms. flanagan, homey homemaker, being marched back to the protective arms of the GOP while the mean girls of the Dem party hoot bad names and vulgar gestures because ms. flanagan is a nice girl who'd rather stay home than hold a picket sign is ridiculous. from all reports, ms. flanagan is just as privileged as her husband; she is an accomplished writer who earns money with her writing, and has a staff to help her do it. how many traditional housewives get that? (and, frankly, the notion that only SHE gets to have a dead mother whom she misses desperately is sickening and offensive.)

2. the sticking up for the white male. does the White Male (as signifier) really need another apologist? really? is it stigmatizing the WM to reveal the existence of those on the outside, rather than to always cater to those on the inside with ultimate cultural privilege? (like any other upper middle class white woman, she's uncomfortable with having privilege revealed and being called out on it.) i think it's interesting that she chooses to frame her argument like this, rather than say that the Dem party has abandoned the working man - which it hasn't and she'd be hard pressed to show that it has.

or perhaps her allegation would ring truer if she wrote that the 'beer-guzzling, union-dues paying' white guy got the shit scared out of him by the GOP when 9/11 hit. rather, flanagan makes the WM a victim like herself and we all know how much they suffer, don't we?

3. she's wrong. perhaps i'm watching the wrong Democratic party but i've always felt that the party has been abject in its pursuit of the Housewife. it's women like me the party's abandoned - single women, single women of color, single working men and women. in my particular case, the post-election backpedaling on the choice issue is one such example; discussion abounded that perhaps the language of reproductive choice was too scary for those housewives living in places like naperville; it was too angry. and where are the policies that look out for the interests of the people like me in the party - people who don't live in a subdivision, people without children, but still people who work hard and believe heartily in progressive causes? instead we watch as the party fumbles for its nerve and makes concessions to those easily upset.

so if anyone is being alienated by the Dems, it's not a housewife. and it's certainly not because of contempt. to muster contempt, a party must have vast stores of anger and the GOP spits it continuously while we swallow ours and hope no one notices.

TIME.com: We're Here, We're Square, Get Used to It -- May. 08, 2006 -- Page 1
Joan Walsh about Flanagan on the Huffington Post

icky, but interesting: Father-daughter balls, coverture, and the double standard

the incestuous overtones aside, father-daughter balls are interesting. i think hugo's comment about old english law and 'coverture' is particularly apt, because it puts the 'father owns daughter' idea front and center, despite the sweetness and light of having daughters dance with their dads.

let's be clear; i think dads should spend a lot more time with their children. i don't think teenagers should be sexually active.

but, personally, if my dad had told me we were going to some funky 'pseudo-prom' together and dance to some christian rock-lite, i would have gagged. WHO wants to be in a clinch with their dad?? when they're in junior high or high school?? totally icky. (it's weird enough there's that whole 'first dance' thing at weddings.)

but why the focus on daughters and not sons? why no mother-son proms or balls? daughters are precious, but so are sons. right?
any policy, activity or ideology that focuses solely on controlling the behavior of girls and women and not boys or men makes my anti-authoritarian hackles rise with suspicion.

anyway, the post is good and the discussion is especially good - which is why i like reading hugo. his community is really sorta cool. (except when all the MRM-ers get on it. they blow.)

Hugo Schwyzer: Father-daughter balls, coverture, and the double standard

about coverture, and the language of covering, in case you were curious:

In English and American law, coverture refers to women's legal status after marriage: legally, upon marriage, the husband and wife were treated as one entity (and not in that swoony, romantic soulmate way, either). In essence, the wife's separate legal existence disappeared as far as property rights were concerned.

Under coverture, wives could not control their own property unless specific provisions were made before marriage, they could not file lawsuits or be sued separately, nor could they execute contracts. The husband could use, sell or dispose of her property (again, unless prior provisions were made) without her permission.
(Almost as if she didn't exist!!)

Sir William Blackstone, in 1765, said this about coverture and the legal rights of married women, in Commentaries on the Laws of England:

"By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law: that is, the very
being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at
least incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband: under whose
wing, protection, and cover, she performs every thing; and is therefore called
... a feme-covert...." [emphasis mine]

um, yeah. so by borrowing heavily on this language which legally served to erase women's individual. legal rights to property (which also gave access to other public rights), this father-daughter purity movement ideologically and symbolically erases the person at the center of all this purity and family unity - the daughter.

what do we call an institutionalized web of social practices that deliberately eliminate women from visibility? patriarchy!

missing the good stuff

this is what happens when you spend the entire weekend watching season 1 of Battlestar Galactica - you miss stephen colbert ripping the president a new one. to his face.

it rocks. it's uncomfortable. it makes you squirm. you want to look away. you can't believe he's saying it. and then you're glad he said it.

full transcript is at the end and if you can stand the video, you can catch it at crooks & liars. priceless!

The Blog Chris Durang: Ignoring Colbert, Part Two The Huffington Post

Ask your rep to Vote no on S.1955: why? because it's not 1955

as scintillating as wage equity is, here's an alert to protect some basic healthcare coverage for women (and some men). this will matter to you if:
you have a uterus
enjoy having a uterus
enjoy knowing your uterus' needs are covered by your health coverage

...
Click here to write to your senator: http://www.ppaction.org/campaign/benefits

If this current budget making its way through is carried, women in every state will lose benefits. It sounds like a bad joke, but it couldn't be more serious. S. 1955 would allow insurance plans to ignore important state laws that protect patients, directly affecting more than 90 million Americans. Chances are you're one of them.

That's why I'm asking you to write to your senator today anddemand that the federal government protect your health coverage: http://www.ppaction.org/campaign/benefits

You may have heard about this "Lose Your Benefits Bill" before, but now it has passed out of committee and the full Senate will vote on it. It's an insidious attempt by hardline senators to chip away at our basic rights. These lawmakers have tried before to restrict access to birth control and other health care you need. Their latest strategy? Force women to pay for these benefits out of pocket.

We've worked for decades to pass state laws that requireinsurance companies to cover birth control just like other medicines. This bill would trample those laws, but it doesn't stop there. Besides fair coverage for contraception, here are some of the other benefits that women could lose:
<> cancer screenings
<> mammograms
<> maternity care
<> the ability to go straight to your OB/GYN when you have a problem
<> the ability to stay with the same doctor throughout apregnancy
<> infertility treatment
<> osteoporosis screenings

And it's not just women who will be affected - the bill guts state protections for coverage for prostate cancer screenings, ambulatory surgery, emergency services, and more. To make matters worse, it will likely also increase the costs of health insurance for older and sicker people who need health insurance most.

Please take two minutes to speak out against this dangerous bill- the Senate could vote as early as next week. Contact your senator now:http://www.ppaction.org/campaign/benefits

Think of it as an investment - two minutes of activism now vs. hundreds or thousands of dollars in extra health costs for you and your family.

another brain buster: do women work less than men?

over at this thread, PV has made a startling pronouncement: women work less than men, therefore, it's ok to pay us less.

when i recovered from my brain bleed, it took me the whole weekend to decompress from the intense discussion of female submission, so i'm just now getting to this little brainbuster.

do we women really work less than men?

i tried to count how many meals my mother planned and cooked for our family between kindergarten and my sophomore year in college: i estimated that was roughly 20,000 meals cooked in a 14-year period. and she had a job for roughly the same period, outside the home. and that still doesn't count the other types of labor she contributed: housecleaning, shopping, food preparation, accounting, household administrative duties, child care/rearing, home repair (my dad was sort of helpless with this), and gardening.

folks, this is all labor. it's work. if it wasn't work, then it would be called fun. since it's not called Fun, then it's Work.

in the april issue of The Economist there are a couple of articles that examine the role of women on economic growth globally in rich nations (i guess we just got rid of that whole First/Third World thing, huh?) and they come up with some interesting ideas:

- in rich countries, we do better in school, are getting more university degrees and are filling most new jobs
- since 1950 men's employment in the US has slipped 12 points to 77% while women's employment rate increased by 1/3 (in America this growth has stalled though there's hope that we can use this market share in new ways in the future, especially as male-dominated industries like manufacturing and manual labor shrink, giving way to jobs requiring more brain power than muscle power)
- women working around the world have contributed more to global GDP growth than new technology or nations like China or India
- women make better investors and make 80% of all consumer decisions
- greater partcipation by women in the workforce could help offset effects of an ageing population and support growth
- the under utilization of women in developing countries stunts economic growth rather than the opposite
- it is untrue that in countries where women work, birthrate shrinks in the long run; rather, in countries where the decline in fertility is high, female unemployment is also high.

needless to say, i think this problematizes at the very least, the idea that wage inequity is ok simply because we 'work less.' the only time my mother 'worked less' was when she got sick and stopped working altogether. and i don't know about you all, but i work my ass off.

ok, discuss! (rules for this discussion: it's not about divorce! in other words, let's try and stay on topic. and if your main source of information is from a guy who could be considered by most academic sources a 'nutjob', i advise using other, less crazy, sources!)

potato, potahtoe: you say responsibility, i say misogyny

The other day, I was called irresponsible. I’m a little puzzled. I mean, I pay taxes, have a job, go to church (I even believe in Christianity), vote, brush my teeth and wash my face. I’ve never been arrested, I’ve never struggled with addictions, and I’ve never even been fined for anything. I’ve never been a single mother (or even been pregnant), I’ve never been on welfare (though I’ve been laid off a couple times) and I’ve never had the police visit my apartment to shut down a raging party.

By the standards of most people, parents included, I am the picture of Responsibility. Wherefore this ‘irresponsibility’?

I suspect that when the word Irresponsible is thrown around or directed at women like me, it is not ‘sloppy living’ or ‘wastrel-ness’ that they really mean. No, I think, for a certain group of people (men who believe that women need to learn their 'place' – a problematic, gendered and racially charged word that should NEVER be used here), what is called 'irresponsibility' is actually a cover for another word, ‘misogyny.'

Isn’t language wonderful? We can say a word but actually be thinking something else entirely!

(The weighty word Responsibility reminds me of something from Foucault: the panopticon. a structure to keep the human subject completely under surveillance and, through surveillance, control the subject .)

Of course I don’t think my life is irresponsible at all. I just define my responsibilities differently, according to my values. I put a very low priority on resting in my 'place.' You may even call me uppity. In this particular case, my irresponsibility stems from the fact that I ignore the ‘natural’ hierarchy established in the bible (God/man/woman on the bottom). I don’t just ignore that hierarchy; I think it’s irrelevant and bogus.

Like, am I subject to *all* men, or just the one I’m married to?
If I’m not married, is it my father I’m supposed to be subject to?
What if I don’t live with my father?
What if my father is dead?
What man am I supposed to be subject to then? Is it the next closest man in my family or just the one who lives across my hall?
Does this apply to just Christian women or would this also apply to slightly spiritual agnostics?
If it’s just Christian woman, are we subject to only the men in our church or perhaps men from visiting churches?
And what about men from other denominations?
Like, I’m Presbyterian – would this mean that a Methodist had mastery over me? Or a Catholic? And what about those free-wheeling Pentecostals?

See? Ridiculous.

If that’s real life, then every woman would be at the mercy of some whack-job simply because he had testicles. (And what do we call that? Patriarchy.)

And isn’t that what we’re really talking about? Patriarchal control. It’s all to put a woman in a tiny box and see her rattle around in it like a discarded toy. If you feel that a woman has a ‘place’ and should inhabit only two roles (wife and mother) in the human ‘chain of command’ you’re a straight up misogynist. You don’t respect women or value women; to you, women are objects to be mastered and used. And if that’s the ideology behind Responsibility/Irresponsibility, I’m willing to be that slacker.

(And I think it’s interesting that when you search for pictures under ‘women’ and ‘responsibility’ in Getty Images, they give you babies and marriage. haven't we progressed at all??)

happy equal pay day!

ah, what shall i do with that extra 28 cents my full dollar will bring me?
oh, the dreams!

yeah, hard to believe that, since the 60s and despite the federal law, women's wages have remained pretty darn flat - still earning only 71-77 cents on a man's dollar for comparable work.

but if you live in illinois and suspect that a wage violation has ocurred at your job, the Dept of Labor will sue for back wages!

all you have to do is call their hotline, file a complaint and they do all the work:
1-866-372-4365

(this is how i spend my lunch hours: at brown bag lunches with other women in the city, in the governor's office, listening to presentations from the department of labor and the dept of employment services. it's not exciting, but they gave us cake. lesson? we have GOT to learn how to negotiate salary.)

while i put the finishing touches on a post about the heavy word Responsibility here are two different articles about pregnancy and motherhood i thought were good contrasts to one another:

pregnancy as commodifier
working mothers in germany

i have thoughts on easter and holy week (and why every easter dinner should have beef in it) but right now i'm so brain dead from a hellacious work day (i was here at 7.30 am!!) that all i can think of is the dream i had this morning:

i'm on vacation with my entire family (mom, dad, married sister and her kids); we're in french polynesia (how do i know? it was tropical yet had good dishes and we all wore scarves really well). dressed to the nines (i was stunned at how chic i looked) i'm having brunch with my family when our hot franco-chinese pilot joins us. after brunch we flirt right in front of my mother (!!), he takes me back to his swank apartment full of pilot memorabilia (!!!), we open a bottle of wine and put on a record (!!!!) - and then my sister shows up because her kids want me to take them on a tour of polynesia.

this is why i don't live in los angeles anymore.

my dad and i talk about poverty and jesus

From Dad, re: my first post on Social Creeds, below -

I read your blog, you know. (LOL) What is biblical? Not daddy’s interpretation, rather the bible’s:
only that which is inspired by God written by those Apostles that wrote by means of the guiding hand of the Holy Spirit which is commanded for only Christians to follow.

(Just one way to put it)

Nowhere in the bible does Jesus command His followers to care for the poor of the world. As a matter of fact he says, "The poor you will always have with you." This does not imply that we ought not assist in feeding others and making their lives easier. Remember Helps Ministry day? That was my way of doing that. And, hey, it worked. The poor showed up every month and never got the spiritual lesson to help thyself!

Keep on thinking but never forget the value of remembering that which worked.

My reply to Dad, re: poverty –

i know you read my blog, dad!

and i know what you mean by biblical - that's not what i meant.

this is what i meant: you can argue that jesus does call for caring for the poor in his instructions to the young man to sell his goods and follow him, in his beatitudes that teach that the least shall be first and, at least in the parable of the banquet. now, is that the most important lesson? no - clearly, in his rebuke of the disciples (when they wanted the woman to sell her oil and give the money to the poor instead of washing christ's feet) he's rebuking them for not paying attention to the heavenly goals of his ministry - they're focusing on the wrong thing!

but the bible also calls us to be our brother's keeper, doesn't it? it exhorts us to exercise humility in the face of greater need and to be as christ was - a servant. if christ is humble enough to wash the feet of his disciples isn't there a moral lesson in this as well for us to wash our brother's feet? throughout his ministry he urges charity and compassion - as well as the spiritual lesson. there are more instances of jesus chastising an overwhelming dependence on material gain than the opposite.

and is 'help thyself' a spiritual lesson or a cultural lesson? really? i must have missed that in bible school, dad! if the argument can be made that christ didn't advocate for the poor the same argument can be made that he wasn't all about rampant individualism and self-sufficiency, either! everything about the bible says the exact opposite of self-reliance: we are to call on Him, we are to rest our thoughts and beliefs outside of our selves, relying totally on christ outside of our selves. we are, basically, to forsake mother, father, family, country and all for HIM. that's not self-reliance - that's ultimate dependence.

but peter also calls for us to display, among other things, brotherly kindness: "For he who lacks these qualities is blind or short-sighted, having forgotten his purification from his former sins."

so, you're right: the exact words "Take care of the poor" don't appear in the bible. But that doesn't mean that we ought not to.

(the words "go to college, move out of your parent's house, get an education and become a productive member of society" aren't in the bible, either.
but that doesn't mean that it's not a good idea.)

Love and all that,
Ding

P.S.:
Other words and ideas that aren't mentioned in the bible but pose no huge biblical conflict because, heck, it's just a good idea:
health care, insurance, literacy, 401k, democracy, trial by jury, freedom of speech, public education, housing for the homeless, pasteurization for milk, airplanes, vaccinations, vacation time, anti-child labor laws

Dad’s reply to me –

Hey Girl of mine!

I got your point. I agree wholeheartedly. My thing is that, overall, the most important aspect of one's faith is being obedient to Christ first and foremost. I would never advocate forgetting the poor - those that have a greater need than me. You are correct; but to use the bible and the words of Jesus as a justification for social advocacy to me is pressing the button a little too firm. True; it is not about taking care of your business as it is advocating His which is clearly detailed in the scriptures. The text of 1st John 3:17 the Apostle writes: "But whosoever has the world’s goods, and sees his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him?" You are so correct. I know that the text is there; this was one of the primary ideas of the Christ. That is why I, too, can take communion.

My shabby life of material things is in no way a justification for me to be full and see any human being in need. I send money on a regular basis to the "Voice of the Martyrs," an agency that sends food and clothing to those Christians in Islamic countries that are being killed on a regular basis. My heart goes out to my brothers and sisters in foreign lands. I would also give the same to other needy people. I really do not have the resources to do that. Your church ministry is helping on a big scale and for that reason I praise God for your ministry.

It is not an issue of liberal vs. conservative. The greater issue is, as you would put it, Do we feel the pain of those who have nothing compared to the haves who are taking all that they can without regard of the feelings of others? This, I'm in agreement with you, is indeed a sin. You are my daughter. I do read you well. Know that I think that we are saying the same thing; but just a little differently. Good; so you do know what I mean as biblical. You see; I place that as the highest priority in that each of us will be allowed to enter in into the life to come on that basis alone.

Oh (LOL), one more thing. That one cannot perceive that the miracles of the scriptures could have taken place in no way verifies that they did not. It takes great faith to take, at first glance, all that you see in the text. I heard one guy say recently on TV that the miracles of the fishes and loaves was merely Christ taking a lunch bag of one young man and passing it around to over 5,000 people and they received the lesson about living for others so they took their own hidden lunches from their own waistbands and, since they learned the lessons of Christ, returned the lunch and then added their own. Justifying the myth of the miracle? Totally unlikely in that environment. Why, simply put, without the Holy Spirit dwelling in the sinful hearts of fallen man, ain't nobody gonna be that loving towards others - even in the presence of Christ. All of the miracles took place. I think that men make up excuses for things that they just find hard to believe.

Just my two cents; wow, look how much I've written. I must love my baby!

my father is vastly more conservative than i am in his theology and, yet, he fails to make me insane. i like talking with my preacher dad about christianity. (i mean, ok, he thinks the UN is a vast conspiracy ushering in the antichrist, but whatever.)
the point is that somewhere between Anonymous calling a desire for fairness Marxist/Socialist and me saying that an important aspect of christianity is about looking out for the less able, there has to be somewhere in between, where we can come together.

the carnival's here!

what's a carnival?
it's sort of a 'Best of' list of posts submitted by readers. there's the carnival of feminists (i love reading them) and now there's a carnival for the writing of women of color. excuse me, radical women of color.

read a point of view you mayn't have read before - that said, check your privilege at the door, cuz these women don't care about it.

radical women of color carnival!

damn you, black tie! damn you!

argh!!

i just had to turn down an invite to the hillary clinton event tonight.
why?

because i have nothing to wear!!

(to tell the truth, the very thorough security check scared the bejeebus out of me, too...who knows what kinds of petitions i've signed in my lifetime??)